Granted, but even in the “un-logic” there’s a certain logic. Who’s really crying out against this particular thing? All the rest, there’s a sort of “paper trail”. The private parts bit is general obscenity laws. The loli part is child-rights laws/advocates. The rape is womens-rights laws/advocates. The best I could come up with for the “non-human” bit is *maybe* animal rights/bestiality laws, somewhat? Since CSA is a group representing the makers, they have to at least come up with some sort of line about “why this is so bad” and “what we need to do to fix it”. As a temporary measure they may be taking all sorts of over-reaching preventative steps, but eventually the real issue will be put on the table. Who’s calling for this, and why? Zepy speculated that it might have something to do with loli, and that’s one reasonable possibility, but even then the two would more likely be connected somehow?
In any event, in all this logic and “un-logic”, we can find the loophole. When the issue was “can’t show private parts!”, they “invented” mosiac and black bars. When the issue was “can’t show underaged girls”, they invented “They’re 18, Really (TM)”. And now if the issue really is “can’t depict ‘non-human’ characters”, it’ll just be “They’re 100% Genuine Human, Really (TM)”. So if we believe in the pattern of “un-logic” we’ve followed to get here so far, we can still say that the industry is probably going to find a way around this, if it comes to pass. And as I said before, if the stores go too crazy with laws and restrictions, there’s always the Internet. This particular restriction, if it were as broadly-implemented as originally implied, would block a number of last year’s top-selling games.
Anyway, I’m still skeptical. We’ll see.
...
, ráng vào Dragonica đi 
, mà lão Taro làm quái gì mà không chặn vụ này nhỉ 
